Case law

Elk v. Townson

839 F. Supp. 1047 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 15, 1993

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v. … Even evidence insufficient to sustain a finding of probable cause may be adequate to show qualified immunity. Warren v.

United States v. Taylor

342 F. Supp. 715 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 8, 1972

Lashlee, 105 F.Supp. 184 (D.W.D.Ark., 1952), both 13(a) and 13(b) were held to be qualified by 13(d). In line with this reasoning the court in Frederick v. … With respect to counterclaims against the United States, Professor Wright has summarized the established principles in the following language: “Despite the sovereign immunity doctrine and the language of Rule 13(d), when

Daytree at Cortland Square, Inc. v. Walsh

332 F. Supp. 3d 610 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 15, 2018

Qualified Immunity "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " White v. … The Court concludes that the qualified immunity issue cannot be decided at the motion to dismiss stage given the allegations in the complaint.

Blume v. Meneley

283 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 25, 2003

Therefore, questions of material fact exist as to this element, and summary judgment is not appropriate. • Qualified Immunity The court must next address whether defendant Meneley is entitled to qualified immunity. … “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ...

Burnham v. Com. of Mass.

299 F. Supp. 3d 319 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 2018

Bringing this action in federal court implicates the Commonwealth's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. … In order to establish that he is a qualified individual with a disability, Burnham must establish that he: suffers from a physical or mental impairment that affects life activities that are 'major,' i.e. , 'of central importance

Sanders v. Borgert

711 F. Supp. 889 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 13, 1989

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense. Huron Valley Hospital, Inc. v. … Even in a more routine case, qualified immunity depends on the circumstances of an official’s actions, as established by the evidence at trial. Manion v. Michigan Board of Medicine, 765 F.2d 590, 592 (6th Cir.1985).

Roberts v. Champion

255 F. Supp. 2d 1272 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 27, 2003

A public official or employee is entitled to qualified immunity unless a “clearly established” federal right of which a reasonable person would have known is shown to have been violated. See Hunter v. … Thus, the test for qualified immunity is two-fold: (1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established, and (2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful? Id.

Lacey v. Bekaert Steel Wire Corp.

619 F. Supp. 1234 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 2, 1985

The policy involved in this case was “carried” by Bekaert, not Van Buren, and Bekaert does not qualify as an “association of any kind or character, not subject to suit for tort.” … Lee Creek Road was established as a county road by order of the Crawford County Court in May, 1968.

Adams v. Duncan

179 F. Supp. 3d 632 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 31, 2016

The burden of establishing that a claim is moot is heavy and it belongs to the party asserting mootness. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. … The district court dismissed the action on sovereign immunity grounds.

Young v. Peoria Housing Authority

479 F. Supp. 1093 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Nov 21, 1979

While an absolute judicial immunity is not available to the Board members, they do have a qualified, good-faith immunity. Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978); Wood v. … First, they are entitled to the qualified, good-faith immunity. Plaintiff has suggested no facts that in any way indicate that these defendants acted improperly or in bad faith.

DOMINIC J. v. Wyoming Valley West High School

362 F. Supp. 2d 560 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2005

to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. 2 A public official subject to suit pursuant to § 1983 may be entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … Because of the absence of a constitutional violation, the Court need not proceed further in determining whether Defendant Tribendis is entitled to qualified immunity.

West v. Grams

981 F. Supp. 2d 820 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Nov 8, 2013

A defendant’s claim of qualified immunity requires the court to answer two questions: (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional or statutory right of the plaintiff; and (2) whether this right was clearly established … In any case, the lack of clear precedent on this issue supports defendants’ claim of qualified immunity.

Watkins v. Officer David Session

District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 7, 2022

To overcome the qualified-immunity defense, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the official deprived him of a constitutional right that was “clearly established” when the alleged offense occurred. See Saucier v. … For purposes of qualified immunity in this District, only decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Florida Supreme Court constitute “clearly established” law. See McClish v.

Schmidt v. Degen

376 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 1974

Historically, “[f]ew doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction . ” Pierson v. … This decision, built upon the established principle that executive immunity is qualified, does not alter the broad sweep of judicial immunity. As my colleague, Judge VanArtsdalen, recently observed in Cohen v.

Phillip Hill v. State of New Hampshire Department of Corrections, et al.

2023 DNH 077 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 27, 2023

Ct. 1176 (2023) (concluding that state did not waive immunity where its prior filings explicitly reserved the right to raise sovereign immunity). … Rehabilitation Act Claims Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits federal grant recipients from discriminating against “qualified individual[s] with a disability.” 29 U.S.C. § 794.

Kohl Ex Rel. Kohl v. Woodhaven Learning Center

672 F. Supp. 1226 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 25, 1987

The reimbursement associated with taking additional and necessary precautions for serving such students, is above the regular costs established for services at Woodhaven School, Inc. 3. … If that accommodation is a reasonable one under the established standards, then plaintiff is an “otherwise qualified” handicapped individual under Section 504.

American Kitchen Delights, Inc. v. City Of Harvey

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 2, 2025

Qualified Immunity Finally, the Court agrees with Defendants that qualified immunity for Mayor Clark is appropriate as to the Procedural Due Process claim. … But the Supreme Court has clearly held that the qualified immunity standard is objective, not subjective. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987); Crawford-El v.

Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.

814 F. Supp. 1312 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 1, 1993

long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … While the entitlement to qualified immunity may be established as a matter of law by the district court, the proper course is for a jury to evaluate the question if there are triable issues of fact about whether an officer

Juan v. Rafferty

577 F. Supp. 774 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 5, 1984

I believe that he is entitled only to qualified immunity for the same reasons that the disciplinary charge hearing officer is entitled only to qualified immunity. See infra. … ____” Butz____ I conclude that defendant Fannon is entitled only to a qualified immunity.

Sampson v. District of Columbia Retirement Board

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2025

have said so clearly. … And “[p]ursuant to” that letter, she “was summarily put on administrative leave”—which itself may qualify as an adverse action. Id. ¶ 73; see Stewart v. U.S.